The Tharwa Review

An apostle, not a king

In the last of four edited excerpts from his new book, Chasing a Mirage, Tarek Fatah argues that the first Muslim state was really an Arab state.
Tarek Fatah,
National Post

Why do so many Muslims want to create a state which they feel is necessary to put into practice the message of Muhammad? What was the task of the Prophet Muhammad? Was he sent to Earth to be the ruler of the Muslim world, their king? Or was he Allah's apostle on Earth, a messenger for all of humanity, who left behind a moral compass to serve as guide for a more ethical, equitable and just society? Alternatively, was he both a Caesar and a Christ for Muslims?

I have no doubt that the Prophet's message of Islam was for religious unity and that Muslims were meant to be one spiritual body, part of the larger human family. Muhammad was undoubtedly the head of this Muslim Ummah. In order to establish the message of God, he used both his tongue and his spear. And before he died he shared with Muslims the last revelation he had received from God, "Today I have completed your faith for you."

During the 23 years that Muhammad shared the message of God -- the Qur'an -- with the people of Mecca and Medina, many times he and the people were reminded about the role of Allah's Apostle. A study of these Quranic revelations will help Muslims understand whether Muhammad was meant to be head of a political state or the head of a religious community or both.

The Egyptian scholar Ali Abd al-Razik in his seminal work, Al-Islam wa usul el-hukum (Islam and the Fundamentals of Authority), says the Qur'an confirms the Prophet had no interest in political sovereignty. He adds that the Prophet's "heaven-appointed work did not go beyond the limits of the delivery of the summons, entirely apart from any thought of rulership." He quotes the following verses from the Qur'an to prove his point.

Promote the faith, not the tribe

Tarek Fatah, National Post
Published: Wednesday, May 14, 2008

In the second of four edited excerpts from his new book, Chasing the Mirage, Tarek Fatah considers the fraught relationship between Arab and non-Arab Muslims.

The poet and philosopher Muhammad Iqbal, who was born in British India in 1877 and died in 1938, is celebrated in Pakistan as that country's "thinker." He was educated in Britain and Germany, and lectured throughout India, producing great works on Islam, politics and economics. He called for an Islamic revival, yet opposed the restoration of of the caliphate and an Islamic State on the grounds that it was an obstacle to the modernization of the Muslim world. He defended the separation of religion and state, writing, "The republican form of government is ... thoroughly consistent with the spirit of Islam..."

Iqbal was an early convert to Kamal Ataturk's republican secularism -- the foundation of the modern Turkish state. In his seminal work The Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam, Iqbal wrote: "Such is the attitude of the modern Turk, inspired as he is by the realities of experience, and not by the scholastic reasoning of jurists who lived and thought under different conditions of life..." that "if rightly appreciated, indicate the birth of an International ideal, which forming the very essence of Islam, has been hitherto overshadowed or rather displaced by Arabian Imperialism..."

The tenuous bond between the Arab and the non-Arab Muslim has, over the centuries, created a love-hate relationship, often one-sided and rarely discussed. While non-Arab Muslims have embraced many facets of Arabian culture and custom, the gesture has rarely ever been reciprocated. Whether it has been the feeble relationship between the Berbers and Arabs, or the never-ending mutual mistrust between Persians and the Arabs, this chasm is largely unnoticed in the Arab world. Iqbal's reference to "Arabian Imperialism" would elicit shock and denunciation from even the most liberal Arab; such is the state of denial.

Sunni or Shi'a, we are all Muslim

Hisham Hellyer

Oxford, England - BBC World recently aired the latest Doha Debate on the motion "The Sunni-Shi'a conflict is damaging Islam's reputation as a religion of peace". It's a timely topic; and a very time-sensitive topic, because it is a question that can only be asked now. Not because the Sunni-Shi'a divide is a new phenomenon: it is an old, historical schism that emerged as a political division, which then became religious. But it is now that the political has really caused it to be so monumental.

I admit that, but I spoke against the motion in Doha, because the damage to Islam's reputation is more about the sensationalism of the media, and focusing on Muslim violence in general, rather than Sunni-Shi'a violence. But the motion brought up another question for me: in the midst of the Sunni-Shi'a conflict that exists in some pockets of the Muslim world, what are we to make of what Islam is or what Islam is not?

Let us be clear: Muslims do not agree on everything. Sunnis have their four, recognised schools of law, and the Shi'a have their own tradition of establishing orthodoxy. Within both groupings, there is the concept of respect for differences of opinion, which are to be celebrated and cherished within each of the groups. In inter Sunni-Shi'a discussions, the concept takes a different tone. The differences are grudgingly tolerated, but with an important proviso: both groupings are Muslim.

The theologians of Sunni Islam long ago established that the "relied upon position" for Sunnis is that the Shi'a are in fact a Muslim community. That status of "relied upon" is a particular type of orthodox stance; one that is difficult to determine, owing to the diversity within Sunni Islam. But on this issue, it was established, and it has been part of the historical orthodoxy that so characterises Sunni Islam. On the Shi'a side, the same generally occurred: Sunnis might be mistaken, theologians said, and their views on Islam might be wrong, but they are still Muslims.

AFGHAN RIDERS SADDLE UP FOR BUZKASHI SEASON

The traditional rough-riding sport is as strong as ever, and there are even plans to make it international.
By Sayed Yaqub Ibrahimi in Mazar-e-Sharif

Springtime in northern Afghanistan brings the sound of hundreds of horses thundering over the dusty ground near the northern city of Mazar-e-Sharif. This is the season for "buzkashi", a wild sport in which troops of horsemen fight to seize control of a dead calf and land its carcass in a circle marked out as the goal.

Buzkashi is popular in other parts of Afghanistan, but riders regard Mazar-e-Sharif as the true home of the sport.

Peak season is in the spring, especially around April 20-21, the traditional Afghan new year or "Nauruz", when thousands of people flock to this northern city for celebrations that last 40 days. The visitors form the bulk of the spectators at the matches, which are usually held on Thursdays and Fridays.

The buzkashi grounds at Dasht-e-Shadian, a desert area ten kilometers south of the city, are a focus for matches which begin in January and reach their height in April, when hundreds of "chapandaz" or horsemen from other parts of Afghanistan congregate here.

This IWPR contributor went to one match between the local Balkh province team and their rivals from Kunduz to the east.

Haji Jamil Bay, who heads the Buzkashi Federation in Mazar-e-Sharif, was in the saddle leading the local riders.

The better angels of our natures

Daniel Abdal-Hayy Moore

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania - Rivalry seems to be hardwired into human nature. Whether we take the Darwinian view or the theological one, it doesn't bode well for peace on earth, good will toward men. "Why can't we all just get along" might be the mantra of human history, resounding through all political systems as well as belief systems, wherever they come into close proximity. Transcending rivalries with compassion and forbearance would then be a spiritual step toward conscious tolerance that all religious revelations have insisted on.

With this in mind, for the non-Catholics among us the Pope's visit to the United States was an opportunity to widen our mental telescopes and look beyond the fanfare headlines. It was an opportunity to take to heart the importance of interfaith respect in our increasingly fractious world.

Given tensions with the global Muslim community following the Pope's Regensburg address in 2006, it is fair to say that Muslims watched the visit closely. The televised baptism of a Muslim convert to Catholicism during the recent Easter Service was also a serious and potentially volatile event that may have been construed as a deliberate slight by the Pope and could have created a violent reaction on the part of Muslims (thank God it did not). Muslims, after all, believe that Islam is the final revelation in the ancient chain of divine teachings, and anyone converting from it to any earlier one is something that, by our own spiritual etiquette, should not be flaunted publicly, as it implies active opposition to the subsequent message and Messenger of Islam.

For Muslims, deep love of the Prophet Muhammad and taking a strong stand for Islam are strong and sensitive issues because we value Islam so highly – not because we think ill of Christianity, repeatedly mentioned as a legitimate religion in God's eyes in the Qur'an, along with Judaism. But human sensibilities are often dry tinder next to flames – I've always felt that Muslims should have ignored The Satanic Verses of Salman Rushdie when it appeared, rather than catapult it to bestseller status and themselves as unflattering representatives of Islam at the same time.

It is imperative that Muslims should revere the devotion of Christians and all others as they do their own, and greet a man or woman of God among us, whomever it might be, as a reminder of Him, regardless of the details of their theological differences. God in the Qur'an says:

Surely those who believe (in that which is revealed unto thee, Muhammad), and those who are Jews, and Christians, and Sabaeans – [in fact] anyone who believes in God and the Last Day and does good, they shall have their reward from their Lord and there is no fear for them, nor shall they grieve. (Qur'an 2:62)

Some Islamic schools produce beggars

Billion-dollar industry springs from religious system based on servitude
By Rukmini Callimachi
The Associated Press

This story, part of a yearlong investigation, is the first in an occasional series on trafficking and exploitation of children in West and Central Africa. Related stories will move in the coming months.

DAKAR, Senegal - On the day he decided to run away, 9-year-old Coli awoke on a filthy mat.

Like a pup, he lay curled against the cold, pressed between dozens of other children sleeping head-to-toe on the concrete floor. His T-shirt was damp with the dew that seeped through the thin walls. The older boys had yanked away the square of cloth he used to protect himself from the draft. He shivered.

It was still dark as he set out for the mouth of a freeway with the other boys, a tribe of 7-, 8- and 9-year-old beggars.

Coli padded barefoot between the stopped cars, his head reaching only halfway up the windows. His scrawny body disappeared under a ragged T-shirt that grazed his knees. He held up an empty tomato paste can as his begging bowl.

There are 1.2 million Colis in the world today, children trafficked to work for the benefit of others. Those who lure them into servitude make $15 billion annually, according to the International Labor Organization.

It's big business in Senegal. In the capital of Dakar alone, at least 7,600 child beggars work the streets, according to a study released in February by the ILO, the United Nations Children's Fund and the World Bank. The children collect an average of 300 African francs a day, just 72 cents, reaping their keepers $2 million a year.

Questioning the death penalty

Ayesha Khan

London - We should not wait for Turkey to lead us in understanding the diversity of Islamic thought on different matters. It is essential for Muslims to be aware of the many opinions that are out there and not assume that what they have been told by imams, scholars or their elders is the only option. Since there is no priesthood in Islam and no agency between the individual and God, it is vital for every Muslim to educate themselves and make up their own minds.

Take the death penalty, for instance, which is part of the legal code in some Muslim countries. Given that in the Qur'an God equates the taking of one innocent life with the killing all of humanity (Qur'an 5:32), it seems quite irresponsible not to clarify any potentially grey areas when it comes to taking someone's life.

The story of 23-year-old Pervez Kambaksh is a case in point. Kambaksh was tried and convicted for blasphemy in Afghanistan for distributing literature taken from the web about women's rights. He will be executed if his appeal is unsuccessful and the campaign to save him does not succeed.

Despite the view some people have of Islam as a strict and homogenous ideology, crimes that are understood to be punishable by death vary depending on who you speak to and where you are. Even the four main schools of Islamic jurisprudence have different views on which crimes deserve the death penalty. The differences come largely from the various interpretations of the hadith, a collection of sayings and deeds attributed to the Prophet Muhammad.

Targeting Iraq's Christians

By Mona Eltahawy

NEW YORK -- The gunmen used silencers on their weapons when they assassinated Assyrian Orthodox priest Youssef Adel outside his home in Baghdad last Saturday. But their message was loud and clear: Iraq's dwindling Christian minority is the target of a cruel bloodletting.

It may seem insensitive just to single out one group for sympathy in today's Iraq, but estimates that half Iraq's Christians have fled speak volumes to the horrors they have suffered since the 2003 U.S.-led invasion.

Father Youssef was the first priest to be killed in Baghdad since the invasion; the second to die in violent circumstances in Iraq in less than a month. The body of Archbishop Paulos Faraj Rahho, one of Iraq's most senior Chaldean Catholic clerics, was found in a shallow grave on March 13, about two weeks after his abduction in Mosul.

We do not know if Archbishop Paulos, who was elderly and reported to be on medication for heart problems, died from the stress of his abduction or if he was tortured and murdered.

He can be considered lucky. In 2006, Orthodox priest Boulos Iskander was also abducted in Mosul. Even though his family paid a ransom for his release, the group which kidnapped him still beheaded him, and the priest's arms and legs were also cut off.

Many lay Christians in Iraq complain that radical Muslim groups have given them a choice: convert to Islam, leave, or die. Christian women have been warned to wear headscarves.

Iraq's Christians are targeted by both radical Sunnis and Shi'ites. Unlike those Islamic sects, Christians do not have militias or large tribes to protect them. That leaves them particularly vulnerable to kidnappings and ransom demands by criminal gangs, who may pose as Islamic radicals -- or by the real radicals who target Christians because of their beliefs.

Beyond Unity vs. Sectarianism

Daniel Brumberg

Last week, Iraq’s Prime Minister Nuri Al-Maliki issued a 72-hour ultimatum to Shi’ite militants in the port city of Basra to surrender their weapons. When they called his bluff, he extended the offer by a full week, underscoring the great risk that Maliki had undertaken in pursuing a military solution to the conflict with the fiery cleric Muqtada Sadr and his “Mahdi Army.” In today’s Iraq, political clout ultimately flows from the barrel of many guns. Thus Sadr’s thousands of loyal followers will not disarm. This was the message that Sadr implicitly telegraphed to the government in his “9 point response” to Maliki’s demands.

Analyzing the motives behind the Iraq government’s actions, United States Institute of Peace expert Daniel Serwer suggested last week that the Prime Minister is determined to assert a “monopoly over the means of coercion” prior to the October, 2008 provincial elections. The government and its American backers know very well that political stability – much less democracy – will never come to Iraq if the national army (such as it is) continues to co-exist with independent Shi’ite, Sunni and Kurdish militias. But the situation is vastly complicated by infighting between the Mahdi Army and its principle Shi’ite rivals in the Badr Brigades--the Iranian-supported military wing of the Supreme Council of the Islamic Revolution in Iraq. Sadly, the time for dealing with this awful mess probably passed in 2003, when the Iraqi military was virtually dismantled.

Explaining shari'a

Noah Feldman

Cambridge, Massachusetts - Last month, Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, gave a nuanced, scholarly lecture in London about whether the British legal system should allow non-Christian courts to decide certain matters of family law. Britain has no constitutional separation of church and state.

The archbishop noted that "the law of the Church of England is the law of the land" there; indeed, ecclesiastical courts that once handled marriage and divorce are still integrated into the British legal system, deciding matters of church property and doctrine. His tentative suggestion was that, subject to the agreement of all parties and the strict requirement of protecting equal rights for women, it might be a good idea to consider allowing Islamic and Orthodox Jewish courts to handle marriage and divorce.

Then all hell broke loose. From politicians across the spectrum to senior church figures and the ubiquitous British tabloids came calls for the leader of the world's second largest Christian denomination to issue a retraction or even resign. Williams has spent the last couple of years trying to hold together the global Anglican Communion in the face of continuing controversies about ordaining gay priests and recognising same-sex marriages. Yet little in that contentious battle subjected him to the kind of outcry that his reference to religious courts unleashed. Needless to say, the outrage was not occasioned by Williams's mention of Orthodox Jewish law. For the purposes of public discussion, it was the word "shari'a" that was radioactive.

In some sense, the outrage about according a degree of official status to shari'a in a Western country should come as no surprise. No legal system has ever had worse press. To many, the word "shari'a" conjures horrors of hands cut off, adulterers stoned and women oppressed. By contrast, who today remembers that the much-loved English common law called for execution as punishment for hundreds of crimes, including theft of any object worth five shillings or more?

How many know that until the 18th century, the laws of most European countries authorised torture as an official component of the criminal-justice system? As for sexism, the common law long denied married women any property rights or indeed legal personality apart from their husbands. When the British applied their law to Muslims in place of shari'a, as they did in some colonies, the result was to strip married women of the property that Islamic law had always granted them — hardly progress toward equality of the sexes.

Who speaks for German Muslims?

Loay Mudhoon

Bonn, Germany - The German Islam Conference has achieved its first concrete result: Muslim religious education will be introduced as a subject in German schools from next year. The move was agreed upon by representatives of the state and its Muslim population – in spite of what was sometimes a bitter controversy. A number of Muslim participants wanted to see a different kind of religious education – the sort of neutral education about Islam which half the German states already offer.

The Federal Interior Minister, Wolfgang Schäuble, sees Muslim religious education as a clear signal to encourage Muslims to integrate into German society. But he quickly had to scale down his initiative after it became clear that there were many open questions and possible risks involved. He had to admit that the main preconditions for the introduction of Muslim religious education have not yet been fulfilled.

Before Muslim religious education can be introduced, it will be necessary for there to be an organisation representing all Muslims in the country. This organisation will also have to be recognised by the state as a Corporation in Public Law. German churches and the Jewish community already enjoy such a status, which gives them certain semi-state rights and duties.

The right to such an organisation is a central demand of the four largest, mainly conservative Muslim associations: the Central Council of Muslims in Germany, the Muslim Council, the Turkish-Islamic Union for Religious Affairs (DITIB) and the Association of Islamic Cultural Centres (VIKZ).

These four organisations got together in March 2007 to found the Coordination Council of Muslims in Germany, and since then they have taken it upon themselves to define the terms of negotiation for the process of developing a consensus in society over the integration of Islam in Germany.

The Pope and Bin Laden

By Mona Eltahawy

NEW YORK -- Is the Pope playing hardball with Osama Bin Laden?

In a March 19 audio recording, Bin Laden accused Pope Benedict XVI of leading a "new crusade" against Islam. The accusation was outlandish and no doubt aimed at giving the al-Qaeda leader a leg up onto the bandwagon of current affairs upsetting some Muslims, including a Danish cartoon of the Prophet Mohammed and an anti-Islam film by a right-wing Dutch politician.

Three days later, Benedict seemed to oblige Bin Laden by baptizing a prominent Egyptian-born Italian Muslim in a Vatican Easter service beamed live to millions across the world.

When extremists from all sides are scrambling for air time, determined to jumpstart that 'clash of civilizations' they alone would benefit from, surely the Pope would've been well advised to avoid playing into Bin Laden's game?

By focusing so much publicity on Magdi Allam's conversion, the Pope appeared to be engaging in a petty one-upmanship unbefitting the religious leader of 1.1 billion Catholics across the world.

It was especially frustrating because on March 15, the first Catholic church opened in the Gulf Emirate of Qatar, and a Vatican official confirmed it was in talks with Saudi Arabia to build the first church in Saudi Arabia, the only country in the region that bars non-Muslim houses of worship.

This last has been especially galling, considering the hundreds of thousands of expatriate workers from many faiths who keep Saudi Arabia running. It makes it easy to deflate the double standards of Saudi officials who condemn Denmark or the Netherlands for cartoons or a film, reminding them that Muslims in both those countries can publicly proclaim their faith in ways that non-Muslims in the Saudi kingdom can only dream.

A veiled Muslim view of art

Bashir Goth

Dubai - The reappearance in the media of the Danish cartoons featuring the Prophet Muhammad, following the arrest of three Muslims accused of planning to kill one of the cartoonists, has re-opened the debate on art and freedom of expression between the West and the Muslim world.

It is unfortunate that violent demonstrations in different parts of the Muslim world in response to such types of artistic expression have often overshadowed the opinion of the silent majority of Muslims who do not adhere to such a limited perception of Islam.

Danish newspapers described their publication of the cartoons as a sign of protest against the attempt by Muslims to gag their freedom of expression through fear tactics. Many people in the Muslim world, however, viewed the cartoons as an affront to their religious beliefs and expressed their anger through emotional outbursts and mob demonstrations.

This is not the first time that the West and Muslims have clashed on the issue of freedom of expression and religion. The works of writers and artists such as Salman Rushdie, Taslima Nasreen, Nasr Hamid Abu Zayd, Naguib Mahfouz and others have caused a furore in the Muslim world.

It is sad, therefore, that the response to the Danish cartoons by Muslims who follow narrow interpretations of Islam reflects the gruesome bloodbaths that are committed daily by persons bearing the name Muhammad, in the streets of Karachi, Kandahar, Baghdad and elsewhere in the heart of the Muslim world.

~Youth Views~ The hijab – from the university to the workplace

Nathalie Nahas

Beirut - On 9 February 2008, 411 out of 550 members of parliament voted in support of the reform for a constitutional reform that would relax the ban on wearing headscarves – or hijab – in Turkish universities, and to amend the constitution. The amendment states "that the state will treat everyone equally when it provides services such as university courses and that no one can be barred from education for reasons not clearly laid down by law".

This recent event created controversy over whether wearing the headscarf should be a state decision or a personal one. Yet, what is rarely debated in the media, but is perhaps equally important to young Muslim women, is the effect the hijab has on ambitious university graduates who are eager to find their place in the working world.

Muslim women across the Middle East face two struggles: reserving the right to choose whether to wear hijab or not, and whatever their choice, facing the judgment of others.

When I entered one of my classes last Tuesday at the American University of Beirut (AUB) in Lebanon, I looked around for my friend, Nadine. I didn't spot her pink headscarf, so I thought that she hadn't arrived yet and took my seat. A minute later, I was surprised to hear her calling my name. I was stunned to see that she had removed her headscarf.

"Hey, you removed it", I said, gesturing towards my hair. She chuckled nervously and said, "Yes, I'm trying to become a social scientist and wearing the hijab carries too many implications."

Through the eyes of Prophet Muhammad

Aftab Ahmad Malik

Bristol, UK - Muslims in the West are increasingly finding themselves in a dilemma. While some are still searching for an identity and a sense of belonging, almost all are confronted at one time or another with the growing mass of competing trends that claim to represent "true" and "authentic" Islam.

As we approach the birthday of the Prophet Muhammad celebrated this year on 21 March, coinciding with the 12th day of the Islamic calendar month of Rabi al-Awwal, it's an interesting time to consider this paradigm. Is there any better way for Muslims to comprehend world events than through the prism of Prophetic character?

The celebration of this event has left its imprint on the lives of many Muslims. The Prophet's birthday is celebrated throughout most of the Muslim world as a national holiday. It is an occasion when poetry is sung in the honour of the Prophet Muhammad and stories of his life are retold.

The Prophet was described by God as a "mercy for all of mankind," and the mawlid, the celebration of the Prophet's birthday, reminds Muslims of the life and character that they are instructed to follow and emulate. This occasion inspires Muslims to pause, take stock of their own lives and reflect upon the standard that the Prophet Muhammad established through his example.

Muslims gain a new way of looking at the world through the Prophet's life story. For example, the Prophet was mocked in his own city of Mecca when he did not retaliate after being subjected to insults, persecution and physical abuse. While many Arabs of that time saw this as being weak, the Prophet Muhammad came to break the cycles of violence, not to perpetuate them.

This isn't to say that Muslims should not seek to redress wrongs. However, the Qur'an instructs Muslims to control their anger (Qur'an 3:134) and not to become so engulfed with rage that it prevents them from dealing with justice.

A mufti, a Christian and a rabbi

Marc Gopin

Washington, DC - In the West, "A mufti, a Christian and a rabbi …" is often how a good interfaith joke begins. But I live inside this reality. I am a rabbi and my Syrian colleague, Hind Kabawat, is a Christian Arab. We have worked for four years with the Grand Mufti of Syria, Sheikh Ahmed Hassoun, in both Damascus and Aleppo.

Over the last four years, the three of us, along with many others of courage, have put on public events in Syria that no one thought possible. No one believed Protestant, Catholic, Sunni, Shi'a and Jewish clerics would sit together at a table, in front of cameras, working out the foundations of a tolerant civil society and making commitments to peace – in the heart of Syria.

We did this not only in the shadow of American neo-conservative efforts to attack Syria but also surrounded by militants in the region. Neither the militants nor the extremists in America have faith that the people of this region can come together in respect and equality.

But we proved that even in tough political environments we can galvanise religious and secular people alike to envision the future of a civil society at peace in the Middle East. Our last conference was viewed by over a million households on Dunya TV and AlJazeera, and we did it without any help from foundations or major donors.

The secret to our success has been to embrace the positive elements of all cultures and groups, and build friendships. This is difficult work, but we are strengthened and amazed by those who come forth in gratitude after each event and thanked us for what we have stimulated.

We love the Mufti because he inspires us with hope, reminding us by his words and deeds that peace is possible. Sheikh Hassoun is loved by thousands in Syria because he works tirelessly to provide for poor people. He also insists upon apologies and forgiveness between civilisations and among Muslims.

The Mufti champions those who are in a vulnerable position in the Middle East, from women to Ismailis, which angers the extremists. He told us on this past trip that he increasingly embraces the secular state as the proper vehicle in which decent religion should operate, a point he also explicitly made before the European Parliament last month.

Revising the hadith

Brian Whitaker

A rather excited report last week on the BBC's Today programme hailed a development that "could signal the start of a reformation" in Islam.

The possibility of an "Islamic Reformation" of the kind that launched Protestantism in Christianity sounds attractive – at least superficially – and it has been promoted with enthusiasm by non-believers such as Salman Rushdie. But Muslims who are actually involved in trying to liberalise and reform their religion usually regard it as nonsense.

What excited the BBC was the news that Turkey's Department of Religious Affairs will shortly issue a revised version of the hadith, a collection of sayings and deeds attributed to the Prophet Muhammad. The hadith plays an important role in Islamic jurisprudence, particularly on matters where the Qur'an itself is silent, and it is on the hadith rather than the Qur'an that most of the silliest fatwas – or religious opinions – by religious scholars are based.

In the earliest days of Islam, words attributed to the Prophet were passed on by word of mouth until they were eventually written down. How many of them may be genuine is a matter of opinion, but some are certainly fakes. In his book, Progressive Muslims, Scott Kugle writes:

"... It is very difficult to establish the authenticity of most reports that circulate in the name of the Prophet Muhammad. But clearly, many reports were projected retrospectively back upon the Prophet without being reliably attributed to him. Muslims are confronted with hadith in which the Prophet reportedly speaks about issues that did not exist in his lifetime: such as the Shia-Sunni schism, various theological 'heresies', and even the systematic collection of hadith."

Indonesia's interfaith exchanges

Arian Fariborz

Bonn, Germany - The Catholic cathedral in Jakarta is just across the road from the city's largest Muslim place of worship, the Istiqal mosque. The church is often full, with hundreds of Christians gathered in its inner courtyard for prayer. But only a few weeks ago, the scene was not quite so peaceful.

During the Christmas period, the cathedral, like many other churches throughout the country, had to be protected by a large police presence as a result of fears of possible attacks by radical political Islamic groups. The fear is not unjustified. Over the last three years, according to the leadership of the Protestant and Catholic churches in the country, at least 108 church and community buildings have been looted, burnt down or been subjected to threats, especially in West Java.

Gomar Gultom is a pastor and an executive of the Protestant Church in Indonesia. He believes that there are many reasons for the increase in this violence.

"Some of the Muslims see the presence of Christians or churches in Indonesia in the context of Christianisation," he says. "If we build a church, it means that it will be a centre for Christianisation – this is how some Muslims understand it. And they worry that most of the uneducated Muslims will become Christian."

Many of the attacks, not just on Christians, but also on Muslim sects like the Ahmadis, are the result of ignorance of religious principles, incitement to intolerance and violence, as well as the increasing poverty in the country. Many Christians criticise the Indonesian state for capitulating before religious violence, and not doing enough to uphold the constitutional guarantee of religious freedom.

An Israeli revisits Malaysia

Dr. Ben Mollov

JERUSALEM—Malaysia stands, in my view, as a place for great social pioneering. I recently returned there for the second time in two years. My first visit took place in December 2005.

As an Israeli, this was an unusual event as there are no diplomatic relations between Israel and this large, influential Muslim country (Malaysian law even prohibits its citizens from visiting Israel). But I was privileged to appear as the sole Israeli speaker at a Global Peace Forum in Kuala Lumpur, held under the auspices of the Perdana Leadership Foundation headed by former Prime Minister of Malaysia, Dr. Mahathir Mohammed.

I accepted the invitation apprehensively, but the experience turned out to be extremely positive. In fact, the Israeli flag was displayed in the massive Kuala Lumpur convention centre, and, as a religious Jew, I wore my kippa (religious head-covering) while addressing the 1,000-person Malaysian audience. (I'm happy to note that my appearance was met by applause). The theme of my presentation was "Approaches to, and the Impact of, Israeli-Palestinian Inter-religious Dialogue."

This was my first exposure to Malaysia, a country that has been endeavouring to find balance in its Islamic, but multi-cultural character. Many Muslims in Malaysia combine the traditional with a certain relaxed attitude. Teenage girls, for instance, routinely wear the hijab head covering with jeans.

While few Israelis are able to visit Malaysia, I found in it a mirror of my own society. Malaysia has a history facing the challenges of multi-culturalism, and I saw its potential to bridge both religious and cultural differences. I returned home with a new sense of perspective in seeing Malaysia as an Islamic and multi-cultural society, akin to viewing Israel as a Jewish and multicultural society.

~Youth Views~ American media needs a new lens

Eman Bukhari and Nirja Parekh

Sharjah, UAE/ Boston, Massachusetts - In the United States, there are assumptions that anything Arab and Islamic is intrinsically anti-American. Media is one channel through which such misperceptions are exacerbated. There are two issues that need to be addressed with regard to how the American media relates to Muslim-Western issues: a biased image of Arabs and Muslims and a simplified account of US foreign policy.

The media has the power to create stereotypes and influence public understanding and opinion. By consistently covering stories of extremist Muslim groups and showing Arabs as violent or anti-American, the media conveys a distorted image of Arab society and Islam while disregarding the reasons for Arab resentment. Thus, media should focus more on causes of their fury, which is the American foreign policy in the Middle East, and less on the violent acts committed by a small minority.

Mass communication theorist, Mark Fishman, looks at the way news is produced and believes that "by acting in accordance with our conception of the ways things are, we concertedly make them that way." Thus, what American mass media defines as being intrinsically Islamic may not be accurate, but still perpetuates a certain stereotype.

For example, in coverage of the Iraq War, the many articles pertaining to violence by suicide bombers sometimes implicate Islam as inherently zealous or fanatical. Media has the responsibility to provide a fair and balanced image of the Muslim identity and to help create an understanding of foreign politics at play in the Middle East, the consequences of which contribute to the rise of a radicalised, Muslim identity.

Saudi Arabian "Justice"

By Mona Eltahawy

NEW YORK -- If justice really was a woman she would not survive long in Saudi Arabia.  Between the Kafkaesque-sounding Committee to Promote Virtue and Prevent Vice and its infamous morality police, and the hardline Wahhabi clerics who serve as judges with wide-ranging powers run amok in the absence of a written penal code, justice couldn't stand a chance in the royal kingdom.

More barbaric than Kafkaesque is the case of Fawzia Falih, a 51-year-old Saudi citizen of Jordanian origin who is awaiting public execution -- by beheading -- for "witchcraft." She had already been hospitalized from weeks of beatings by the morality police (the mutaween) prior to her conviction in April 2006.

Judges sentenced her to death based on a confession extracted during those beatings. Falih, who is illiterate, was made to fingerprint that confession although she could not read what it said. One witness against her was a man who claimed he had suddenly become impotent after Falih "bewitched" him.

In a rare moment of lucidity in September 2006, an appeals court threw out her capital conviction after Falih retracted the confession. But a lower court later ruled she should be executed in the "public interest."

It would be macabre to call Falih lucky, but at least she understood the proceedings against her. I doubt that Rizana Nafeek, a Sri Lankan maid who just turned 20, understood a word of her "trial" which sentenced her to be beheaded.

Nafeek was accused of murdering a baby -- who she says choked as she was feeding it. She was only 17 at the time. She had no access to lawyers during either her interrogation or her trial. Like Falih, Nafeek also retracted a "confession" extracted during police questioning.

Controversy can lead to change

Marie Korpe

Copenhagen - About ten years ago, a Swedish photographer held an exhibition entitled "Ecce Homo", a collection of provocative photos portraying Jesus as a homosexual. The reaction from some conservative church clerics was swift and strong: "This is barbarian, not biblical" read one of the newspaper headlines, and a heated discussion followed.

The photographer said the series was inspired by the deaths of many of her homosexual friends by AIDS, and by church publications that claimed the disease was God's punishment. The collection of "offensive" art was not created to hurt others, but rather to provoke dialogue and enlighten the public about AIDS and homosexuality, the artist said.

Homosexuals in Sweden were eventually allowed to have civil marriages and request their partnership be blessed in a church, while AIDS patients can now speak openly about their disease.

Similarly, the Danish cartoons portraying the Prophet Muhammad were indeed a provocation, and in turn, the media focused primarily on the responses from ultra-conservative Muslims, many of them self-taught Muslim clerics. The debate between those on both sides seeking to sensationalise the issue was not constructive.

A more productive approach would have been to explore the context under which this event occurred, especially in light of recent events like the arrest of those allegedly plotting to kill the Danish cartoonist, Kurt Westergaard. And the next step would have been to address the frustration of marginalised Muslims who feel unable to voice their anger and disappointment through the proper channels, such as the media or government.

Scrap "battle of ideas" talk

Aysha Chowdhry and Andrew Masloski

Washington, DC - Notably absent from the presidential primary campaign is serious discussion on how to implement an effective long-term strategy for protecting the United States from future terrorist acts. Many political leaders in the past have embraced winning "the battle of ideas" against Muslim extremists as the most important component of any strategy, yet this ubiquitous catchphrase stems from an erroneous and counterproductive framework for understanding extremists like Bin Laden.

The framework assumes that groups like Al Qaeda possess a coherent and compelling interpretation of Islam that the United States must counter to prevent Muslims from adopting it. This flawed understanding should be replaced with a more nuanced approach based on the true nature of the terrorist threat.

The "battle of ideas" approach is counterproductive for two important reasons: first, it encourages the concept of a Manichean struggle raging between two equally powerful and opposing world views, in effect legitimising the extremists' understanding of the struggle; and second, it overstates the extent to which Bin Laden's world view constitutes a viable theological alternative for the world's 1.3 billion Muslims. These zealous religious views are not only alien to most Muslims living today, but have also earned a place on the fringe of the history of Islamic intellectual thought.

For an effective strategy, the United States needs to take three important steps. The first is de-coupling Islam and terrorism. The 9/11 Commission Report states that "the enemy is not just 'terrorism'… it is the threat posed by Islamist terrorism." While it is true that America faces a significant threat from people who identify themselves as Muslims and dress their grievances in religious terms, this does not mean that such people are perpetrators of "Islamist terrorism". The phrase implies that Islam sanctions terrorism and that Muslims are more likely to commit terrorist acts. "Terrorism in the name of Islam" is more accurate.

Re-examining French-style secularism - An interview with Catherine Kintzler

Rachid Boutayeb

Bonn, Germany - Responding to French President Nicolas Sarkozy's vigorous challenge to the principle of separation of religion and state, Catherine Kintzler, a professor of philosophy at the University of Lille and author of Qu'est-ce que la laïcité? (What is Laicism? ) defends French-style secularism as the only true protectorate of religious rights and individual freedom.

Is laicism, or French-style secularism, a dogma that needs to be revisited?

Kintzler: In my book, What is Laicism?, I explain that laicism is not a doctrine in which one believes or does not believe. One can be a Muslim, a Catholic or an atheist, and still be a laicist. Laicism is a philosophical concept which, unlike "tolerance", does not ask how antagonistic freedoms can coexist in a society where diverse communities live side by side. Laicism is about constructing a space a priori that will allow every individual to enjoy freedom of opinion.

This space is defined by the public authority. It produces and enforces the law. And the individual does not need to be a member of a specific group to enjoy freedom of opinion within civil society, because the public authority is entirely impervious in its approach to religious and non-religious forms of belief.

This principle is of enormous contemporary relevance, and is a response to the urgent questions of the day. In my view, any attempt to qualify or revise this principle, would be a political error.

Reinventing shari'a

Asim Siddiqui

London - The Archbishop of Canterbury is an immensely intelligent and thoughtful figure. His comments on 7 February were his contribution to the difficult issues surrounding community cohesion and how to quell the feeling of alienation among some quarters of British Muslim communities so they feel more a part of this country.

While the tabloids have gone haywire, it is important that we don't get carried away here. The difficulty with the term shari'a (Islamic principles of jurisprudence) is that it is such a broad notion which encapsulates both personal and public matters. It is also open to such varied interpretations. I would argue that the basic objectives of shari'a – protection of life, family, dignity, intellect and property – are all covered by British law. The fundamental purpose of shari'a is to achieve justice. This country is more just than most. So what more shari'a do people want?

The aspects of shari'a being considered by the Archbishop are restricted to matters of family and finance law, i.e., civil matters. No one is suggesting introducing the so-called Islamic penal code – so let's not waste time debating something most of us don't want to see in the Muslim world, let alone Britain.

As for family and finance law: let's deal with the latter first, the United Kingdom is already amending its finance laws to allow shari'a-compliant products such as halal (permissible according to Islamic principles) mortgages and Islamic bonds. Why? In part to attract the billions of petro-dollars floating in the cash-rich Gulf. That's a law driven by the commercial global realities to keep London as a premier financial capital; it's hardly the makings of Londonistan.

TIGHTER REGULATION WORRIES KYRGYZ FAITH GROUPS

Smaller confessions claim plans to tighten registration rules for religious groups threatens basic freedoms.
By Tolkun Namatbaeva in Bishkek

New, more restrictive regulations governing the practice of religion will undermine people’s constitutional rights and antagonise faith groups, according to Kyrgyz lawyers and representatives of various confessions.

The State Agency for Religious Affairs says the current legislation on freedom of religion and on religious organisations is out of date and needs to be amended.

A new bill has been drafted which, if it goes through, will require religious organisations – a classification which includes individual houses of worship - to have at least 200 members in order to obtain the registration they need to operate legally. At the moment, they only need ten members to register with provincial authorities.

Religious colleges will also need to register and have their teaching programmes checked by the State Agency for Religious Affairs. Finally, the government plans to ban the distribution of religious books and material outside places of worship and special shops, and to require anyone wanting to hold a religious event to gain prior permission.

Kanat Murzakhalilov, deputy head of the State Agency for Religious Affairs, says the “overwhelming majority" of religious organisations support the new rules.

Murzakhalilov said changes to the law were needed because of conflicts created by proselytising faith groups coming in from outside Kyrgyzstan, which rode roughshod over local sensibilities. The agency is concerned at the number of such groups active in Kyrgyzstan, he added.

Who speaks for Islam?

John L. Esposito and Dalia Mogahed

Washington, DC - Extremists and terrorism have too often monopolised the media's coverage and thus the message coming out of the Muslim world. But what do the vast majority of mainstream Muslims really believe, think, and feel? What are their hopes, fears, and resentments? Why is it that a robust anti-Americanism seems to pervade the Muslim world? Is it the sign of a clash of cultures – do they hate who we are? Or is it what we do? Rather than listening to extremists or simply relying on the opinions of individual pundits, why not give voice to the silenced majority?

We asked Muslims around the world what they really think and discovered that when we let the data lead the discourse, a number of insights are revealed. The most important finding from our research was this: conflict between Muslim and Western communities is far from inevitable. It is more about policy than principles. However, until and unless decision-makers listen directly to the people and gain an accurate understanding of this conflict, extremists on all sides will continue to gain ground.

Who Speaks for Islam? What a Billion Muslims Really Think is based on six years of research and more than 50,000 interviews representing 1.3 billion Muslims who reside in more than 35 nations that are predominantly Muslim or have sizable Muslim populations. Representing more than 90% of the world's Muslim community, this poll is the largest, most comprehensive study of its kind. The results defy conventional wisdom and the inevitability of a global conflict – even as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan continue.

The study revealed some surprising findings. It showed that Muslims and Americans are equally likely to reject attacks on civilians as morally unjustifiable. Those who do choose violence and extremism are driven by politics, not poverty or piety. In fact, of the 7 percent of responders who did believe 9/11 was justified, none of them hated our freedom; they want our freedom. However, they believe that America, and the West in general, operate with a double standard and stand in the way of Muslims determining their own future.

Healing Separation

Lila Sophia Tresemer

FLINDERS ISLAND, Australia—In October 2006, a group of women from the Holy Land gathered in Colorado to co-create a Middle Eastern village experience—living, eating, and learning together. The women came from a wide variety of backgrounds: Jewish (several were religious, others secular and some pagan), Arab (Druze, Muslim, Christian and pagan), as well as women from the US with a range of cultural identities.

The premise of this group was not to focus on divisive identity politics, but on what we have in common: our humanity, our caring for life, our empathy. And while we were deeply unified in our perspective as women, we also explored the disparities in how each cultural group perceived being seen by "the outside world." By naming these generalisations and confining narratives of our cultural and ethnic identities, we diluted their potency—enabling us to dissolve our separations and deepen our mutual-understanding.

Part of this process was to feel into the nature of separation—understanding it in the context of the social, political and physical reality of Israel/Palestine. Aiding us was Rianne Eisler's model of the Dominator culture, which is described as using separation, force and violence as tactics of control, e.g. torture, terrorism, tearing apart families, creating the "other" as enemy.

To understand the Dominator paradigm, we had to view it dispassionately, without judgment. It is simply the way of the world at present, and it is entirely possible for the paradigm to shift towards one of Partnership. By Dominator we were not implying or bashing a male-dominated gender system; this model is just one way of understanding the most recent cycle of human development. It is a model that reveals great imbalance between masculine and feminine influence.

Islam and individual freedom

Sheikh Ibrahim Ramadan

Beirut - Freedom is to creativity what the soul is to the body. The Qur'an affirms individual freedom and underscores its relevance as it pertains to our individual decisions. Even the pivotal issue of religion, namely faith versus non-belief in God, was left to individual choice: "Whosoever will, let him believe, and whosoever will, let him disbelieve" (Qur'an 18:29).

Thus, human behaviour in Islam is subject to a person's discretion. Disagreement between people is therefore intrinsically unavoidable and indeed expected: "And if thy Lord had willed, He verily would have made mankind one nation, yet they cease not differing; Save him on whom thy Lord hath mercy; and for that He did create them" (Qur'an 11:118-119).

Islam does not restrict human freedom in any way but makes human beings responsible, individually as well as collectively, for the consequences of their decisions; one must think about one's actions and consider their ramifications. The possibility of having to deal with certain consequences may seem to limit individual freedom, but it provides a deep benefit to society as it perpetually reinforces the social adage: "A person's freedom ends where the freedom of others begins". Were it not for this restriction, the blessing of freedom would be a curse of chaos, and individual freedom would become a nuisance to others and an infringement on their interests and choices.

But how is accountability for one's choices enforced in the Islamic framework?

First, it is imposed through the punitive responsibility borne by an authority that handles public affairs, inclusive of the task of establishing order. Relegating responsibility to a higher authority essentially allows for the possible prevention of conflict, or its resolution should it break out. Since this disciplinary responsibility aims to preclude transgressions, it falls in line with the hadith, or saying of the Prophet Muhammad, "No harm and no damage", as well as the Qur'anic verse: "Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors" (Qur'an 2:190).

The path of centrist political Islam

Khalil Al-Anani

Cairo - For more than three decades, fundamentalist religious organisations across the Arab world – such as the Islamic Group in Egypt, the Armed Islamic Group in Algeria, and Al Qaeda – have monopolised global attention. Meanwhile, moderate currents faced – and continue to face – difficulty expressing themselves at the international level, even though they represent the mainstream essence of Islam.

Now, violent waves of extremism have waned one after the other, as is evident from the receding popularity of such organisations, the disintegration of the central command of Al Qaeda, and its transformation from a hierarchal system to a state of mind. It seems that the Arab public has meanwhile become more amenable to "centrist" political ideologies, which call for tolerance, moderation and communication with the "other".

This comes as a result of the suffering that Arab societies have witnessed due to the prevalence of extremist violence, and a wariness towards martyrdom overtures which inflict death and destruction upon innocent civilians. However, shifting this paradigm requires that moderate political Islamic groups be allowed the opportunity to participate in the political arena.

~Youth Views~ To wear or not to wear the hijab

Hafsa Kanjwal and Khadijeh Zarafshar

Washington, DC - We are American Muslim women, who strongly identify with our faith. We are Georgetown University seniors who remain active and involved with the American Muslim community. One of us wears a headscarf, known in Arabic as the hijab. The other does not. Yet the right to wear the headscarf – without censure, condemnation or patronising pity – is a right we both defend.

The notion of the sexually exotic but tragically repressed Muslim woman has resided within the Western consciousness since the West first interacted with the Muslim world. In an article which appeared in Islamica Magazine, Mohja Kahf, a professor at the University of Arkansas links this hackneyed character to the "era of Romantic literature, and the Byronic plot of a white man saving a harem girl, [which] continued to thrive in the heyday of European colonialism, feeding a white Christian supremacist hero complex."

In modern times, the veil has become an emotionally charged symbol of the struggle between tradition and modernity, between Islam and the West. It has arguably served as a partial political justification for certain policies spearheaded by the United States to "liberate Muslim women" in Afghanistan or Iraq. We, as American Muslim women, simply by living our dual identity, demand a re-evaluation of this externally imposed dichotomy. As Americans, it is not our place to speak on behalf of the women of other nations. What we can do is share our experiences and insights into what hijab means to us, here in the United States.

Art, the universal language of religion

Naif Al-Mutawa

All art is at once surface and symbol. Those that go beneath the surface do so at their peril. Those who read the symbol do so at their peril. It is the spectator, and not life, that art mirrors. - Oscar Wilde

Kuwait City - It is neither a secret nor a surprise that the first manifestation of religion was in art form. Cave drawings and hieroglyphics shine a light on the mind of early man seeking meaning in life. The abstract pictorial representations were gradually solidified into idols and idolatry was born. But when the Abrahamic tradition took centre stage, idolatry was abolished throughout most of the world. Or was it?

Art is the only language that all humans share in common. Anyone can look at art and tell you what they think it means. A word can be written in hundreds of languages but each word only makes sense to those few of us who understand that specific language. Even then, words within a language can have various meanings based on the context.

Take the word iqra in Arabic. Iqra is credited as being the first word revealed to the Prophet Muhammad in the Holy Qur'an. Ask most Arabs and they will tell you that iqra means "read". They will also tell you that the Prophet was illiterate. And when asked why God would order an illiterate man to read, most will just shrug their shoulders. Why? Idolatry of the word iqra.

When people first communicated through the use of images, idols were – well, idolised. As methods of communication improved, the written word – in the form of holy books – often took the place of these idols. The more concrete the interpretation of a word, the more the actual image of that word is being idolised. Words communicate a depth and breadth of meaning that transcend the sum of their letters. For example, it just so happens that the word iqra can also be defined as "to spread", as in spreading a message or a religion. In essence, then, a rigid interpretation of God's words by man is nothing more than idol worship.

The lost jihad: love in Islam

G. Willow Wilson

Cairo - "At the heart of all things is the germ of their overthrow," wrote Egyptian author Adhaf Soueif in her novel, The Map of Love. She was indulging in a very beautifully written digression about Arabic grammar, comparing words derived from the same root: in this case, qalb, "heart"; and enqilab, "overthrow". At this level, where the interplay of meaning and construction is visible, Arabic becomes an extraordinary language, forcing into cooperation concepts and ideas that are entirely unrelated in English.

Despite the tremendous conceptual range and utility provided by the root-and-pattern system of the language, there is a common assumption among non-speakers that Arabic – and thus, Islam – lacks an equivalent of agapé, a Greek term used by Christians to mean the boundary-less, self-sacrificing love between believers, or between a believer and God. More passionate than filia, less explicit than eros, agapé is love stripped of expectation, in which the lover is humbled and disciplined before the beloved. A Google search for “agapé” and “Islam” yields literally hundreds of sites claiming there is no such term in Arabic, and painting Islam as a cold, dispassionate religion in its absence.

Over the years, Sufi Muslims have co-opted many of the romantic Arabic words for love and made them serve an ideal very much like agapé. The poetry of 10th and 11th-century Sufis helped inspire the troubadour culture and ideals of courtly love that flourished in the medieval kingdoms of southern France, Navarre and Aragonne; one of the positive artistic developments to arise from contact between Christian Europe and the Muslim Near East during the Crusades. But many of the greatest Sufi thinkers, including al Ghazali, were themselves influenced by Platonic, Neoplatonic and Gnostic Christian ideals of love, kept alive in the medieval Middle East by the translation of Greek, Roman and Byzantine texts into Arabic and Persian. The question remains: we know the Prophet Muhammad meant Muslims to love and serve God, but did he mean them to be in love with God – and to reflect this love and service among each other?